Printable View
I'm sure there are a few stalker/harrassment laws that he is guilty of. This latest letter that he submitted not only to his loyal followers but posted on the yahoo boards is an admission of guilt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeboo1
I wonder when he will get his followers to commit mass suicide?
Being in the media biz... as soon as someone tells you not to call that number any more, that means the line is drawn -- and it becomes against the law for that person to do it again. The fact that he not only called again -- but TWO times should be clear indication of what kind of person this Hartleib is. He broke the law TWO TIMES by calling this person again.
Regardless of what Calderone did or didn't do -- or what she knew or didn't know -- this should be a serious red flag to those even thinking of being in Hartleib's camp. I've said this guy is a loose cannon; and now he has shown that he has no problem breaking the law to achieve his objective. Two wrongs don't make a right.
What Hartleib did is wrong - regardless of Calderone. If she says not to call her at home, he cannot do it. Period. He has broken the law.
Remember that, all of you in his camp. What other law is he about to break? Where else is he going to lead you? Have you prepared yourself for the possible legal action against YOU for if/when he does something even worse?
I feel for you if you have not.
-----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriusXMInvestor
Incase you haven't heard the news I believe Sirius slashed nearly 30 percent of their workforce. Redundancy is dominant when two companies merge. Attrition is the result. Reading anymore into this without proof is nothing less than idle gossip and innuendo. Something that could be considered slanderous if you were to elaborate on your point just a bit more. Enlighten me did these two people resign? You are stating they left on their own. You seem very knowledgable on this whole subject I would like to hear all about it if you care to share.
His claim to know more about this, would be admission to possessing insider information if true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeboo1
He has no problem breaking the law by openly admitting to harrassment, so it should be no surprise to see him claim to have insider information too.
----------
We shall soon see. Hartlieb and Michael Moore will be making a documentary on how MEL and co. screwed us all out of billions of dollars. Because remember we never had a chance to close out our positions in this stock.
Oh by the way, sorry If mentioning Michael Moore offends anyone. Everybody sure has been on the rag lately. Sorry I shouldn't have said that either.
Being a resident of California, perhaps Hartleib should familiarize himself with California law:
California Penal Code section 653m
653m. (a) Every person who, with intent to annoy, telephones or
makes contact by means of an electronic communication device with
another and addresses to or about the other person any obscene
language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict
injury to the person or property of the person addressed or any
member of his or her family, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in
this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic
contacts made in good faith.
(b) Every person who makes repeated telephone calls or makes
repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device with
intent to annoy another person at his or her residence, is, whether
or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or
electronic contact, guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this
subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts
made in good faith.
(c) Every person who makes repeated telephone calls or makes
repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device with
the intent to annoy another person at his or her place of work is
guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one
thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for
not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or
electronic contacts made in good faith. This subdivision applies
only if one or both of the following circumstances exist:
(1) There is a temporary restraining order, an injunction, or any
other court order, or any combination of these court orders, in
effect prohibiting the behavior described in this section.
(2) The person makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated
contact by means of an electronic communication device with the
intent to annoy another person at his or her place of work, totaling
more than 10 times in a 24-hour period, whether or not conversation
ensues from making the telephone call or electronic contact, and the
repeated telephone calls or electronic contacts are made to the
workplace of an adult or fully emancipated minor who is a spouse,
former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or person with whom the
person has a child or has had a dating or engagement relationship or
is having a dating or engagement relationship.
(d) Any offense committed by use of a telephone may be deemed to
have been committed where the telephone call or calls were made or
received. Any offense committed by use of an electronic
communication device or medium, including the Internet, may be deemed
to have been committed when the electronic communication or
communications were originally sent or first viewed by the recipient.
(e) Subdivision (a), (b), or (c) is violated when the person
acting with intent to annoy makes a telephone call requesting a
return call and performs the acts prohibited under subdivision (a),
(b), or (c) upon receiving the return call.
(f) If probation is granted, or the execution or imposition of
sentence is suspended, for any person convicted under this section,
the court may order as a condition of probation that the person
participate in counseling.
(g) For purposes of this section, the term "electronic
communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones,
cellular phones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers.
"Electronic communication" has the same meaning as the term defined
in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States
Code.
-------------
You sound like you're in Hartleib's group... I feel sorry for you...Quote:
Originally Posted by buddylee
--------
Not at all. That was an attempt at sacracsm, apparently I failed miserably.
Sorry, then... as a shareholder, this guy really boils my blood. He deserves everything coming to him.
Likewise. Know that this thread, the YAHOO thread as well as copies of the letters he has sent to Sirius shareholders today have been forwarded to the right people.Quote:
Originally Posted by homer985
I wish you could be the one to deliver it to him Homer.
The California Stalking Law Penal Code Section 646.9 has greatly evolved over the past fourteen years and has become more effective in defining and addressing this increasingly common crime. California now has one of the strongest stalking laws in the country. No Longer should victims of stalking be turned away by law enforcement and told, "come back when he actually hurts you." From 1991 through 1993, stalking was a misdemeanor punishable by only one year in county jail when no restraining order was in place. Under the current law, a first-time stalker can be sentenced to a felony charge and sentenced to State Prison for up to three years. If a court or restraining order is in effect, the stalker can be sentenced up to four years in prison or if he has previously been convicted of felony stalking or other related crimes, he could face up to five years in prison.
Michael has put this woman and her entire family in harms way. As crazy as he seems to be, it would only take one even crazier shareholder to harm this woman.
so-what if he did break a law by calling.
one would do well, to understand if it was a simple reduction of head count do to the merger.why would they the company waist the time money and effort to offer them a long term position under contract? then they both just decide to leave shortly after being promoted.
when it comes to the bean counters whom can be jailed for their actions or in-actions. based on what and when they knew of a issue, along with what action did they take. it does give me a bit of reason for pause when two bail out within a three month time frame.
unless of course they both figured the company was done going forward, it was a fair paying position. and both had accepted it.
Or maybe she's just PREGNANT you stupid #%&^#*'s
Quote:
Originally Posted by tim wallick
No offense, but I do have a problem with the above statement... try filling in the blank:Quote:
Originally Posted by tim wallick
so-what if he did break a law by ____________
The last I checked, this was the USA. We have laws. What other law is this guy going to break in order to achieve his agenda?
That doesn't bother you? Really?
------------
Give me a phucking break. You should spend more time trying to identify the "client" who is phucking the stock price through ISEG.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Matthews
Maybe the real rason for her leaving was due to some sociapath calling her at work and at home on a constant basis. Based on past knowledge of this group and their actions, there is not a chance in hell they were not harassing this woman. Maybe she figured this was a good way to get away from the situation.
She needs to take a restraining order out on him ASAP. Something is not right with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by homer985
what does bother me, is he could be correct. as a shareholder, i do see how his position could cause anger for many people.
No. You give me a break. I have received threats from shareholders. What this idiot did was sick every demented gullable shareholder follower of his into going after this woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriusXMInvestor
He might as well have put a contract out on her. This is no freaking joke. He has to be stopped before he really gets someone hurt.
Brandon,
I hope by "the right people", you also mean Sirius Legal counsel. This Hartleib fool needs to be stopped once and for all. If we wait a little longer, the NAB or hedge fund he is involved with may go under, but why wait.